Arthur Richards, Inc. v. 79 Fifth Avenue Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Arthur Richards, Inc. v. 79 Fifth Avenue Co.

441 N.E.2d 1114, 57 N.Y.2d 824, 455 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3726

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 7, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 441 N.E.2d 1114 (Arthur Richards, Inc. v. 79 Fifth Avenue Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Richards, Inc. v. 79 Fifth Avenue Co., 441 N.E.2d 1114, 57 N.Y.2d 824, 455 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3726 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Justice Arnold Fein at the Appellate Division (88 AD2d 517, 518), to which we add only that the testimony of the building superintendent that his usual practice was to tell the tenants when the water was to be turned back on and that he knew when he turned the water back on on August 27 that everyone had left the L & D premises and that he could not get into those premises, establishes a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding of negligence on the part of the owner and management company.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Justice Arnold Fein at the Appellate Division (88 AD2d 517, 518), to which we add only that the testimony of the building superintendent that his usual practice was to tell the tenants when the water was to be turned back on and that he knew when he turned the water back on on August 27 that everyone had left the L & D premises and that he could not get into those premises, establishes a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding of negligence on the part of the owner and management company.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 N.E.2d 1114, 57 N.Y.2d 824, 455 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-richards-inc-v-79-fifth-avenue-co-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack